The scientists who signed this letter have a lot of catching up to do. Their "declaration" was behind the times the moment it came out, because several critical studies were released between the 2006 Madison conference and the publication of its conclusions.

To summarize what made this declaration out-of-date:

(1) A study published in <i>The Lancet</i> determined that pregnant women can best protect their unborn children by eating considerably more fish than U.S. government guidelines recommend.

(2) A Harvard study published in <i>JAMA</i> found that the documented health benefits of eating fish far outweigh any hypothetical risks.

(3) The Institute of Medicine cautioned that posting mercury warnings in public places results in a “spillover effect,” scaring away Americans who have no reason to heed the warnings of fish-related health risks.

(4) In <i>Environmental Health Perspectives</i>, researchers who conducted a well-regarded study of health risks associated with mercury conceded that their observations in the Faroe Islands were related to whale meat, not fish. (This is the study on which the EPA's "reference dose" for mercury is principally based).

Bottom line: The "Madison Declaration" isn't credible because it's obsolete.

Readers who are interested in this research can find an easy-to-read summary in a report called "Seafood Science Since Madison," which is available from the Center for Consumer Freedom at:

http://www.mercuryfacts.org/downloads/Seafood_Science_Since_Madison_web.pdf